Erika D. Smith: With judge's ruling, Indiana's war on immigration is finally over

Mar. 29, 2013

Students stand on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse after organizers asked then to come forward during the protest against the proposed Indiana immigration bill -- Senate Bill 590 -- March 15, 2011. / Charlie Nye / The Star

Written by

I vividly remember an evening two years ago when I sat in a Northwestside house surrounded by DREAMers, a group of mostly Mexican immigrants who ended up in this country as children, but wanted a path to citizenship.

They were drawing up plans for a sit-in at the Statehouse. These teenagers were ďundocumented and unafraid,Ē but they were also desperate to stop Indiana from enacting a sweeping anti-immigration law.

Their efforts didnít work, of course. But the courts have chipped away at Indianaís law ever since. And with a final ruling Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker, the war over illegal immigration in Indiana is finally over.

Judge Barker threw out two provisions of the 2011 law. The first would have barred the use of consular identification cards as an official form of ID, even though the U.S. Treasury allows banks to accept the cards, which are issued by foreign governments. The second provision would have let police arrest someone whose immigration status was questionable, even when federal authorities had determined that person should be able to remain in the United States.

The ruling makes permanent a preliminary injunction that Barker issued in June 2011.

It also follows a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that reinforced the notion that enforcing immigration laws is the responsibility of the federal government, not states.

That is still tough for many Hoosiers to accept, though. After all, it was frustration over what many saw as the federal government's inability to enforce immigration policies that prompted the Indiana General Assembly to act -- OK, overreact -- in the first place.

In reality, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the number of deportations actually has been going up, not down, each year.

Still, with Judge Barkerís ruling, I choose to look at the end of this local immigration war as a victory. A victory of common sense over common ideology.

All the judge did was to uphold the U.S. Constitution by striking down the parts of Indianaís immigration law that violate federal due process and search and seizure provisions. She left intact the part of the law thatís likely to have the biggest effect on curbing illegal immigration, which is the provision to deny tax breaks to businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

(Page 2 of 2)

Sadly, she also left in a provision that makes illegal immigrants ineligible for in-state tuition and certain scholarships. However, there is a bill making its way through the General Assembly that would allow those immigrants who were already enrolled in college when the law passed to finish their education paying in-state tuition.

As a community, we have to be careful to draw the line between supporting policies that make sense and policies that merely feel good. Policies that do what they are designed to do and policies that do more harm than good.

Is there really a good reason to bar people from using consular identification cards to conduct simple business? Is there really a good reason to have state and local police, already stretched to their limits with shrinking resources, arrest people for having a questionable immigration status?

The only reason I can think of is to make the lives of illegal immigrants miserable. Meanwhile, those immigrants contribute to the local economy every day by buying gas, groceries and clothing, and paying rent.

We also have to remember, this isnít just about illegal immigrants from Mexico. Indiana -- Central Indiana in particular -- has a growing population of immigrants, period.

The percentage of Marion County residents who were born outside the U.S. jumped 51 percent from 2000 to 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 10 percent of Eli Lilly and Co.ís local work force, for example, was born outside of the United States. Other corporations rely on a pool of international talent, too.

While it might be hard for some long-time residents to imagine, some immigrants who are here legally might find Central Indiana less attractive if we were to subject illegal immigrants to a witch hunt of warrantless arrests.

Our laws shouldnít reflect short-sighted dogma. They should reflect the kind of place we want our state to be. An ugly chapter in Indianaís history has closed, and thatís something we all should be able to celebrate together.